16100 Greenridge Terrace - Staff Report and Exhibit 2PREPARED BY: JOCELYN SHOOPMAN
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/24/2018 ITEM NO: 2
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-16-002 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-17-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 16100 GREENRIDGE
TERRACE. PROPERTY OWNER: EMERALD LAKE INVESTMENTS LLC. APPLICANT: KOHLSAAT AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REQUESTING APPROVAL TO RE-ZONE A PROPERTY ZONED HR-2½ TO HR-2½:PD AND TO SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO EIGHT LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2½. APN 527-12-002.
RECOMMENDATION:
Open and hold a public hearing to allow the public to provide verbal comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
PURPOSE OF HEARING:
As required by CEQA, this public hearing is being held during the 45-day public review period
for the DEIR for the proposed project which includes a request to re-zone a property zoned
HR-2½ to HR-2½:PD and to subdivide one lot into eight lots. The Notice of Availability for
review of the DEIR was released on September 14, 2018 with the 45-day public review period
ending on October 29, 2018. This public hearing is an opportunity for members of the public to
provide verbal comments on the completeness and adequacy of the DEIR. Written comments
will be accepted until the close of the public review period that ends at 5:00 p.m. on October
29, 2018.
The DEIR is an informational document that informs the public and the Town’s decision-makers
of significant physical environmental impacts related to the proposed project. The DEIR also
identifies ways to minimize potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level
through implementation of mitigation measures. The DEIR will be considered by the deciding
PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 16100 GREENRIDGE TERRACE/PD-16-002 AND EIR-17-001 SEPTEMBER 21, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Greenridge 16100 DEIR.docx
PURPOSE OF HEARING (continued):
body in its review of the proposed project. The findings within the DEIR do not mandate a
particular decision on the proposed project, and the DEIR does not act as a recommendation
for the proposed project. The proposed project may ultimately be approved, even if the DEIR
discloses significant unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project. Similarly, the
proposed project may be denied, even if the DEIR finds that there are no significant impacts. A
decision on the proposed project will be made based on the merits of the project and the
record, including the DEIR.
This public hearing is not intended for consideration of the proposed project nor for the actual
certification of the DEIR. The deciding body may not act on the merits of the proposed project
until the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared. This public hearing is
intended solely to allow the public an opportunity to provide verbal comments on the DEIR.
Staff will not be responding to comments on the DEIR received during the public hearing. The
responses to comments will be included in the FEIR.
NEXT STEPS:
Following the public hearing on October 24, 2018, and the close of the 45-day public review
period on October 29, 2018, staff and the Town’s Environmental Consultant will respond to all
written comments and to the testimony received at this Planning Commission public hearing.
The response to the comments will be provided in the FEIR, which will include any revisions to
the DEIR necessitated by the comments that are received.
A public hearing for consideration of the FEIR and the proposed project has not been
scheduled. The Town Council is the deciding body for the proposed project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject
property. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 19, 2018 are included as
Exhibit 2.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1.Notice of Availability and DEIR
Note that the complete DEIR is also available online at:
http://www.losgatosca.gov/16100GreenridgeTerrace
PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 16100 GREENRIDGE TERRACE/PD-16-002 AND EIR-17-001 SEPTEMBER 21, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Greenridge 16100 DEIR.docx
Received with this Staff Report:
2.Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 19, 2018
Distribution:
Emerald Lake Investments LLC, 2635 Bronzewood Drive, Tustin, CA 92782
Gary Kohlsaat, 51 University Ave, Suite L, Los Gatos, CA 95030
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 2
1
To: Planning Commission, meeting 10/24/2018
From: Dave Weissman 10/18/2018
Re: Comments on Draft EIR for 16100 Greenridge Terrace
1. What was the purpose of the “scoping meeting” last April, 2017? Neighbors offered many
comments and areas of concern but none are addressed in this DEIR. We need to know what
comments and questions will be answered in the Final EIR since all comments are due by
10/29/2018 at 5 PM. How are we supposed to know if one of our questions from the scoping
meeting might go unanswered in the final EIR if we don’t know what questions will be answered?
2. In May, 2011, a Due Diligence Report (hence referred to as Report) was commissioned by the
property owner at that time. We discussed this Report at the April, 2017, scoping meeting as this
Report seems to periodically disappear from Town files. Several issues were raised by the Report,
foremost being the 1970 court ruling which stated, according to the Report, that “subdivision of the
35-acre parcel would result in forfeiture of all Greenridge Terrace access rights.” If that statement
is true, then simultaneous development of proposed Lot 1 and subdivision of the remaining lots
would be impossible. So, is the Report correct or not?
3. The Report also states that private street Francis Oaks Way may be considered for emergency
access. Has such emergency access been secured since such would be required, for subdivision
to proceed, according to the Report?
4. Site topography is the second largest constraint to development, according to the Report. The
only reason that the site’s average slope is not more than 35%, is because of previous grading
done for roadways. How can such man-made grading result in additional potential density? As the
Report discusses, a maximum theoretical density is not a guaranteed maximum.
5. Why are only 3 Alternatives considered since there are at least 2 ot her Alternatives that should
have been considered?
Alternative 4 would be to do one of the two 4-lot subdivision alternatives as discussed in
the Report. Both 4 lot options decrease the needed infrastructure, leave more open space, avoid
much of the constraints imposed by the steep topography, have driveways and cul -de-sacs within
Town standards, and result in more clustering, which is a major goal of the HDS&G PD Ordinance.
Alternative 5 would be to combine presented Alternatives 2 and 3. This Alternative 5 would
not only save 11 more trees, but it would also ensure preservation of more than the 4.46 acres
under the current proposal. While no development is now proposed for these other open space
areas, future development, such as fences and vineyards, would be prohibited and such would
add an extra layer of habitat protection, as noted by the DEIR.
6. Current Town codes restrict driveway lengths to 300 feet and cul -de-sac lengths to 800 feet.
Why does the DEIR not comment on how the proposed 8 house subdivision would violate both of
these provisions and would thus require that exceptions be granted? Why does the DEIR also not
comment on how both 4 lot subdivisions in the Report would minimize the need for these driveway
and cul-de-sac exceptions, in addition to the other positive benefits discussed above in #5 ?
7. In a DEIR of this size, there are many moving parts . The accuracy of an analysis by one party
may depend upon previous analysis by another party. There should always be internal peer review
because later decisions by the governing body will utilize earlier presented information. Let me
give 2 examples of significant errors in this DEIR – both are related to the number of trees that will
be removed by proposed houses .
For Lot 3, Sheet L3.1in the Conceptual New Residence Study states that 16 trees will be
removed and shows their location. The DEIR, page 22-3, states 24 trees will be removed. The
EXHIBIT 2
2
Arborist’s Report, page 21 in Appendix D documents “high impact” to 33 trees, shows their
locations on his copy of Sheet L3.1, and states in his report (page 7) that trees with “high impact”
from/during construction, should be removed. But most significant is that 9 of these trees are
within the footprint of the proposed house or driveway and, yet, all 9 of these trees were omitted
on Sheet L7.1.
For Lot 7, Sheet L7.1 in the Conceptual New Residence Study states that 7 trees will be
removed and shows, with an “X”, their location. But using the same schematic, the Consulting
Arborist, in Appendix D, lists on page 8 , and shows on page 25 of his report, that 24 trees will
have a “high impact” level. (These 24 total trees were also correctly identified in the DEIR on page
22-3). But most significant for a claim of incompetence is that these 17 omitted trees are, once
again, within the footprint of the proposed house and yet, all 1 7 of these trees are not shown on
Sheet L7.1!
Are these obvious errors being made because of conflicts of interest? Showing a low
number of trees to be removed impresses the Deciding Body. S imultaneously, showing the higher
number of trees to be removed in the arborist report, is also good for the applicant, because when
they want to actually remove these trees , they only have to show the Town’s Arborist the tree
report to justify their removal on the Tree Removal Permit. This action is facilitated because the
Town’s Arborist apparently never goes back to the original documents to confirm which trees the
Deciding Body approved for removal when the A&S application was approved. So, my question is
how are these errors not being corrected by internal peer review?
Such tree removal information, when accurate, is important for several reasons:
a. It could result in the repositioning of the proposed house. In fact, DEIR Alternative 2 is
just such an effort as this alternative proposes to move 3 houses to save 11 trees.
b. Which trees are to be removed, and their locations, are a necessary component of a
properly done visual analysis (see #8 and #9 below).
8. The Town’s HDS&G Visibility Analysis methodology was modified on 12/5/2017. Why does the
applicant’s visibility analysis not reflect these changes, specifically as they apply to proposed Lot
4? In Appendix C, for Lot 4, Sheet A -4.2 indicates that the proposed house is 45.5% visible, yet,
on Sheet A-4.1, the maximum elevation is shown as 25’ instead of the required 18’. How can that
be? Also, there are 4 screening trees (#250, 251, 256, 257) on Lot 4 that would be removed under
the proposed plans. Where are the calculations/simulations that show how these 4 trees affect the
screening once they are removed? Was such a required analysis even done? Fortunately, the
DEIR, on page 3-15, correctly states that Lot 4 is limited to 18’ in height. But how does the error on
Sheet A-4.1 get into the Town’s packet at all?
9. The same criticism for the Lot 4 visibility analysis in #8 above, can also be asserted against the
incomplete and sloppy methodology shown for Lots 3, 5, and 8. Again, why was this analysis not
properly presented to the Town by showing , through simulations/mockups, as to what the effect
would be of removal of screening trees? Did the Town staff do its own peer review? How does the
Town, or an outside peer reviewer (which the CDD director has the option of bringing in – see
HDS&G, page 14, j.), know if the analysis was done correctly without seeing the complete
methodology? This information is critical not just because of the 25% visibility threshold, but
because the HSD&G (page 15) requires that a structure be moved to another location on the site if
such a move can reduce the visual impact.
10. A major purpose behind the visibility analysis is to limit the visual impact of new houses on the
Town and valley floor. When visibility exceeds 25%, then the height of the proposed house is
limited to 18 feet. But in the case of Lot 3 (with 56.2% visibility for a 5,392 ft2 house), Lot 4 (with
45.5% visibility for a 5,483 ft2 house), Lot 5 (with 52% visibility for a 5,434 ft2 house), and Lot 8
(with either 32.1% [from the calculations on Sheet A-8.2] or 39.6% [as shown in photo on Sheet A-
8.2] visibility for a 5,606 ft2 house), how does the massive size of these houses possibly speak to
the goals of the HDS&G? And the above houses have the following visible elevations from the
EXHIBIT 2
3
valley floor: Lot 3 at 1,717 ft 2 (although the applicant incorrectly states 1,338 ft2 because numbers
were transposed), Lot 4 at 1,311 ft2, Lot 5 at 1,579 ft2, and Lot 8 with either 570 or 703 ft2 visible,
depending upon which percentage on Sheet A -8.2 is correct. Nowhere in the HDS&G is the
applicant promised a ~5,000+ ft2 house just because they went from 25’ to 18’ in height. Since
smaller houses are simply less visible, w hy aren’t these proposed houses smaller?
11. Lastly, the DEIR says (page 22 -1) that CEQA does “not allow a reduction in the number of
housing units…if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation available that will
provide a comparable level of miti gation.” Does anyone really believe that the cumulative effect of
all the listed negative environmental consequences a re themselves, when added together , not
significant? And this sum total is not mitigatable. I would predict that a wildlife survey done now
and repeated several years after buildout of this proposed project, would show a significant
reduction in the amount of wildlife present on these 36 acres. Oak woodlands can be resistant but
not to such a massive insult.